Common law action by shipper permissible.

- Former Civil Code 1910, § 2774 (see O.C.G.A. § 46-9-90) did not prevent shipper from bringing action at common law. Thompson v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 26 Ga. App. 487, 106 S.E. 322 (1921).

Section not applicable to transportation of livestock.

- Former Civil Code 1910, § 2774 (see O.C.G.A. § 46-9-90) had no application to matter of receiving livestock for transportation. Youmans v. Georgia & F. Ry., 142 Ga. 781, 83 S.E. 784 (1914).

Duty to exercise care in providing refrigeration need not be express.

- Duty to exercise care in providing necessary refrigeration is in no way dependent on express contract imposing it, and the carrier's liability is not affected by the fact that the bill of lading is silent on the subject. Unless such duty is voluntarily assumed by the shipper, if the class of goods shipped requires refrigeration for their preservation, it is the duty of the carrier to provide a supply of ice sufficient for the purpose, and it will be liable for damages resulting for nonperformance. Powell v. Jerome, 73 Ga. App. 257, 36 S.E.2d 371 (1945).

Carrier's liability for insufficient icing where shipper discovers situation.

- Carrier's liability for insufficient icing is not affected by shipper's discovery that cars were insufficiently iced if the shipper had no opportunity to remedy the situation, and it believed that the goods would reach their destination without injury, or if the shipper called the attention of the carrier's agent to the fact that the cars were insufficiently iced and was assured that sufficient ice would be furnished. Powell v. Jerome, 73 Ga. App. 257, 36 S.E.2d 371 (1945).

Larger crop does not necessarily absolve railroad's responsibility to provide refrigeration.

- Railroad company cannot escape responsibility to furnish refrigerated cars upon ground that crop was unusually large, provided it was no larger than might reasonably have been expected from the acreage planted, knowledge of which the railroad company either possessed or had the means of obtaining. Central of Ga. Ry. v. George P. Greene & Co., 41 Ga. App. 794, 154 S.E. 809 (1930).

Measure of damages in action under section.

- Where a suit for failure to furnish cars was based on former Code 1933, §§ 18-314 and 18-315 (see O.C.G.A. §§ 46-9-90 and46-9-91), the measure of damages prescribed therein being the sole and exclusive measure in any suit brought under such statutes, the market value of the product was to be determined at "the market to which the shipper intended shipping" it. Southwestern R.R. v. Davies, 53 Ga. App. 712, 186 S.E. 899 (1936).

Cited in Western & A.R.R. v. Meister, 37 Ga. App. 570, 140 S.E. 905 (1927); Southwestern R.R. v. Davies, 53 Ga. App. 712, 186 S.E. 899 (1936).

C.J.S.

- 13 C.J.S., Carriers, §§ 35, 61.

ALR.

- Validity, construction, and effect of provision of contract for carriage of livestock whereby shipper assumes responsibility for condition of car, 28 A.L.R. 526.